EHESS

The Invention of Ethiopian Jews: Three Models (Trois approches de l' "invention" des Juifs
thiopiens)
Author(s): Steven Kaplan
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Cahiers d'tudes Africaines, Vol. 33, Cahier 132 (1993), pp. 645-658
Published by: EHESS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4392496 .
Accessed: 11/08/2012 13:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

EHESS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cahiers d'tudes Africaines.

http://www.jstor.org

NOTES

ET DOCUMENTS

Steven Kaplan
The

Invention

of

Ethiopian

Three

Jews:

Models*

In an era of dramatic changes for ethnic groups and nations, few peoples have
been as completely transformedas the Beta Israel (Falasha).l Prior to 1977 all
but a handful of Beta Israel lived in Ethiopia. During the 1980s almost half of
them came on aliyah (immigration to Israel), and the center of Beta Israel life
shifted from Ethiopia to Israel. In 1991 "Operation Solomon" put an end to
the Beta Israel as an active and living Ethiopian community, and by the end of
1992 virtually all Beta Israel were in Israel.
The changes undergone by the Beta Israel have not been limited, however,
to their physical relocation. The past decade and a half has also seen a radical
redefinition of both their self-identity and the way in which they are depicted by
outsiders.
The purpose of the first part of this paper is to consider three perspectives on
Beta Israel identity. It begins with a summaryof recent historical-anthropological opinions on the Beta Israel that are heavily influenced by African and, in
particular,Ethiopian studies. It then considers the manner in which the Beta
Israel are portrayed in Jewish and Israeli sources. Finally, through an examination of their stories of origin and the names they use, it explores the way in
which the Beta Israel themselves are redefining their self-image.
In the second part of this paper, the dynamics of and the relationships be-

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a symposium (in Hebrew),

Turning Points in Modern Jewish History, sponsored by the Institute of Jewish
Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at a workshop entitled Ethnicity, National Identity and the Invention of the Past sponsered by the Harry
S. Truman Research Institute. I would like to thank all the participants for
their comments. Professor Bogumil Jewsiewicki, Dr Daphna Golan, and
Professor Irene Eber also offered valuable comments on earlier drafts of this
paper.
1. As we shall discuss in some detail, each of the names used to designate the Beta
Israel has its own history. In Ethiopia, the members of the group usually
referred to themselves as Beta Israel ("The House of Israel") or simply
Israel. They were more widely known as Falasha. Today, they prefer to be
called Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopian names and words have been transcribed as in
KAPLAN 1992. For simplicity sake, however, Falasha has been rendered as
Falasha, and Beta Esra'al as Beta Israel.

Cahiers d'ttudes africaines, 132, XXXIII-4, 1993, pp. 645-658.

646

STEVEN

KAPLAN

tween the different models2 will be considered. In particular,an attempt will

be made to understandthe manner in which recent events are reflected not only
in a transformationof the way in which they are perceived, but also in the development of new linkages between the different models.

The Beta Israel in their Ethiopian Context

We begin our examination of Beta Israel identity with the consideration of
recent scholarly views of their history and culture. We take these as our starting point not because of their inherent superiorityas a description of the group,
but because they are little known outside academic circles and form an interesting contrast to both other viewpoints. This examination serves, therefore, as
a useful foil to what follows.
Until quite recently, virtually all attempts to explain the origins of the Beta
Israel have had a number of characteristicsin common. First, they have been
essentially diffusionist in character. In other words, the presence in Ethiopia of
a seemingly recognizable Jewish ethnic group has been explained primarily as
the result of contact with members of one or another ancient Jewish community. The Beta Israel, it has been claimed, are the descendants either directly or
indirectly of Jews from Solomonic Israel, the lost tribe of Dan, a Jewish military
colony in Upper Egypt, or missionaries from Yemen.3 Second (and here the
voices of the scholars prior to the 1970s would appear to have been even closer
to unanimity), the history of Judaism and Christianityin Ethiopia has been portrayed as the recapitulationin miniature of the history of these two faiths in the
world at large: a small early Jewish population is said to have been superseded
by a later Christiancommunitywith only a tiny remnant of Jews surviving. The
Beta Israel, it has been claimed, are essentially a fossilized survival from preChristian Aksum.4
Recent research carried out by scholars with an African-Ethiopianistbackground has painted a radicallydifferent and far more complex picture of the two
faiths in Ethiopia.5 Indeed, it bears little resemblance to that of the two religions elsewhere in the world.
While there is clear evidence of Jewish influences on Ethiopian culture during the first centuries of the Common Era, these were not so much supplanted

I have used the term model rather than theory in this paper in order to do justice to the diversity of views contained within a single category. Holders of
shared model frequently differ among themselves with regard to details of Ethiopian Jewish history and identity. As we shall demonstrate below, however,
they share common assumptions and guiding principles.
3. For a useful recent survey of the vast literature on this subject, see TREVISAN
SEMI1987: 25-40. I have considered these theories in some detail in KAPLAN
1992: chap. 1, 13-32.
4. For a survey of scholars offering this view, see KAPLAN1988: 53-55. Professor
E. Ullendorff has recently informed me that he has abandoned this view
(Personal communication, July 1991).
5. On the relationship between Semitic studies scholars and Africanists in Ethiopian studies, an ifor an invaluable survey of recent research in the field, see
2.

CRUMMEY1990.

THE INVENTION

OF ETHIOPIAN

647

JEWS

by Christianityas absorbed into it. Thus an Israelite self-identity, the Saturday

Sabbath, circumcision, Biblical dietary laws, and a three-fold division of houses
of worship in imitation of the Temple in Jerusalem all became core elements
of the dominant Christian culture (Ullendorff 1956, Hammerschmidt 1965,
Getatchew Haile 1988).
Moreover, while there was almost certainly a portion of the population that
remained faithful to a more Judaized form of religion following the arrival of
Christianity,it would be a tremendous simplification to identify the Beta Israel
as their descendants or to depict Beta Israel religion as merely an archaic
reminder of this early period. Assimilation, intermarriage, acculturation, and
major religious upheavals all played a part in the emergence of the Beta Israel.
From a cultural perspective there appears to be little question that the Beta
Israel must be understood as the product of processes that took place in Ethiopia between the fourteenth and sixteenth century.6 During this period a number of inchoate groups of ayhud7living in Northwestern Ethiopia coalesced into
the people known as the "Falasha". Their emergence as a distinctive people
was the result of a variety of political, economic, and ideological factors. The
rise of the so-called Solomonic dynasty in the last decades of the thirteenth century and its subsequent expansion throughout the Ethiopian highlands placed
the ayhud of the Lake Tana region (as well as many other hitherto autonomous
groups) under unprecedented pressure.8 From the early fourtheenth century
onward, a gradual process of disenfranchisement took place that eventually
deprived many of the Beta Israel of their rights to own inheritable land (rist).
Denied this crucial economic asset, they pursued a number of strategies to
retain their economic viability. While some doubtless identified themselves
with the dominant Christian landholders, others either departed for peripheral
areas where competition for land was limited, or accepted the reduced status
of tenant farmers. In both the latter cases, they probably began to supplement their income by pursuing crafts such as smithing, pottery, and weaving.
Thus the vague religious and regional bases for their identification were
supplemented and further defined by an occupational-economic distinction
(Quirin 1992: 40-88).
At the same time, revolutionary changes in their religious ideology, practice
and institutions resulted in the development of a far more clearly defined and
articulatedreligious system. Both the Beta Israel's oral traditions and the testimony of their literature offer strong evidence that crucial components in their
religious system developed no earlier than the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Beta Israel accounts of their history trace virtually all major elements of
their religion to the influence of the originally Christian monks, Abba Sabra
and Sagga Amlak. Monasticism, purity laws, holidays, literary works, and
the prayer liturgy are just a few of the features credited to these culture

6.

KAPLAN

1992,

ABBINK

1984: 69-71, 1990, 1991; KREMPEL1972,

SHELEMAY

1986,

TADDESSE TAMRAT1991, QUIRIN 1992.

7.
8.

Ayhud literally means "Jews", but is generally used to refer to Christian heretics and other political or religious deviants. See the discussion in this term
below.
For a masterful survey of this period, see TADDESSE TAMRAT 1972.

648
heroes.9

STEVEN KAPLAN

While doubtless a somewhat idealized and condensed view of their

role, it finds support in other sources (Kaplan 1990a:53-78).

With regard to the Beta Israel's corpus of sacred books, the majoritycan be
shown to have reached them through the Ethiopian Church and to have been
translatedinto Ge'ez from Arabic (Kaplan 1990a). Since translationfrom Arabic
only became common in Ethiopia from the fourteenth century onward, none of
these books can have reached the Beta Israel earlier than this period. At least
one, Naggara Muse ("The Conversation of Moses"), was translatedas late as the
eighteenth century.1O
Moreover, given the liturgical use of a number of these books including the
Arde'et ("The Book of the Disciples"), Mota Muse ("The Death of Moses"), and
the Testamentsof Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, several important rituals can be
demonstrated to have acquired their current form only after these books came
into the possession of the Beta Israel. Although their religious system and
communal identity continued to change and adapt throughout their history, it is
to this crucial period in the fourteenth and fifteenth century (and not to an
alleged ancient link with an external Jewish group) that we must look if we are
to begin to solve the riddle of the identity and origins of the Beta Israel. Indeed,
as we shall discuss in some detail below, it is only toward the end of this period
that they acquire the distinctive name Falasha, which they were to carry with
them during so much of their subsequent history.
For many readers the preceding section's description of the Beta Israel may
come as a surprise. Outside of Ethiopianist circles, such opinions have had surprisingly little impact. Within academic circles, however, this view of the Beta
Israel is gradually assuming a dominant position." Indeed, it is difficult to
think of any field in which the gap separating scholarly and popular views is
greater or has grown more so over the past two decades.

The Beta Israel in Jewish-Israeli Discourse

Unlike the scholarly opinions summarizedabove, the popular Jewish-Israelview
of the Beta Israel is not of recent origin. Some of its elements can be traced back
as early as the Middle Ages and the first Hebrew reports about Jews "beyond
the rivers of Kush".12 However, it is only with the arrival in Ethiopia of Jacques Faitlovitch in 1904 that the Jewish (and later Israeli) view of the Beta Israel
can be said to have crystallized.

1986: 79-86; LESLAU1975; BEN-DOR1985.

9. QUIRIN1992: 65-72; SHELEMAY
10. KAPLAN1990a: 101; 1988: 63-64. For partial translation of this text, see KAPLAN
1990b: 97-105.
11. Thus in his review of Kaplan, The Beta Israel, L. D. Loeb writes of ". . . the
major theses of recent scholarship questioning the direct link between Beta
Israel and ancient Jewish settlement of the Upper Nile or South Arabia"
(Choice, April 1993: 513).
12. At least four Hebrew books have been published concerning the subject of Jewish attitudes to Ethiopian Jewry (CORINALDI 1988, CHELOUCHE 1988, WALDMAN
1989, 1992). Although all of these books offer valuable collections of sources,
none of the authors offer any reflections of the concerns that lay behind the
images portrayed in their sources.

THE INVENTION OF ETHIOPIAN JEWS

649

Faitlovitch, who dedicated his life to the cause of Ethiopian Jewry, was responsible more than any other single person for their entry into Jewish history
and consciousness.13 The processes which he set in motion beginning with his
first visit to Ethiopia can be said only now, almost ninety years later, to have
reached their logical conclusion with the aliyah of the Beta Israel community to
Israel. The common thread which ran through all aspects of Faitlovitch'smultipronged program on behalf of Ethiopian Jewry was the attempt to bring them
closer to other Jewish communities. In part he sought to reform their Judaism;
in part to raise their standards of education. He also attempted to create a
Western educated elite capable of interactingon a more or less equal basis with
their foreign Jewish counterparts. However, he also in no small part tried to
project an image of Ethiopian Jewry which would be both familiar and attractive
to European and American Jewish audiences. Thus he portrayed the Beta
Israel as a foreign Jewish element grossly out of place in their strange African
environment. In his report to Baron Edmond de Rothschild following his first
visit to Ethiopia he wrote:
" Lorsqueje me suis trouve en Afrique parmices Falachasentoures de peuplades
a demi-sauvages,j'ai ressenti une joie indicible en constatant leur energie, leur
intelligence, les hautes qualites morales qui les distinguent. Nous pouvons etre
fiers de compter parmiles n6tres ces nobles enfants de l'Ethiopie, qui, avec un non
moins legitime orgueil, se glorifient de remonter a nos origines, adorent notre
Dieu, pratiquentnotre culte. L'ardeuravec laquelle ils cherchent a se regenerer,
a sortir de cette barbarieafricaine qui les enveloppe et les etouffe, prouve qu'en
eux persiste le caractere instinctif de la race [.. .] Combien differents en cela des
autre Abyssins, si refractairesaux etudes, au progres et a la civilisationdes Europeens auxquels ils se croient naivement superieurs!14
Faitlovitch was, as we have indicated, certainly not the first author to carefully shape the image of the Beta Israel. Medieval Hebrew authors, European
travellers (most notably James Bruce), and Joseph Halevy had preceded him in
this respect. He was, however, undoubtedly the most persistant and influential
shaper of their image. In his lifetime and particularlyon the popular level no
other aspect of Faitlovitch's activities appear to have been as successful. The
mythic image of the Falasha as a pre-Talmudiclost tribe which migrated to Ethiopia was accepted with remarkable readiness throughout the world and has
dominated discussions of their religion, literature, culture and history.
In fact, this image of the Beta Israel as descendants of an ancient Jewish
community permeates most of what is written about them today both in Israel
and the Jewish press. Thus, for example, it has been quite common to analyze

13. Unfortunatelywe still lack both a comprehensivebiographyof Faitlovitchand a

detailed analysisof his impacton the Beta Israel.See, however,GRINFELD 1986.
14. FAITLOVITCH 1905:26-27. For a similarquote from Faitlovitch,see SHELEMAY
1986:26. This image of EthiopianJews as a "foreign"element in Ethiopiawas
recently echoed by the Deputy Director Generaf of the Israeli Ministry of
Health. Discussing health problems of Beta Israel immigrants,he reassured
members of the Israeli Parliamentthat: "The rate of illness among Ethiopian
immigrantsis far lower than that found among the African [i.e. non-Jewish]
populationof Ethiopia"(Ha-arets,June 15, 1993 [emphasisis mine, S. K.]).

650

STEVEN

KAPLAN

the Beta Israel's religious system in terms of its links with "other" archaic
forms of Judaism and to consider the many elements it shares with Ethiopian
Christianity as foreign accretions (Aegcoly 1943: 24-83, Waldman 1985: 25-50,
Chelouche 1988: 49-82).
In a widely circulated handbook available in both Hebrew and English,
Rabbi Menachem Waldman writes (1985: 25)
"The religious customs of the [Beta Israel] communitydistinguishthem from the
other tribes in Ethiopia. They live in accordancewith the Law of Moses, while at
the same time carry out Jewish tradition in their own unique way.
Their special customs, in many ways different from those practicedelsewhere
in the Jewish world are the result of the community'stotal isolation from the rest
of the world Jewry and centers of learningwith the fact that they have had to survive in a hostile and primitiveenvironment [...I
The years of isolation and hardshipled to a blurringof the commandments,
even though they are explicit in the Tora. Thus mitzvot such as tzitzit, tefillin,
mezuza, sounding of the shofar on Rosh Hoshana, the Four Species on Succot and

others have disappeared. Hebrew print and language, too, are totally absent
today in both the writingof the communityand its speech. Numerouscommandments have survived in their basic form but are vastly different in Rabbinicaltradition. Similarly,a number of customs, foreign to the spirit of Judaism,such as
tatooing and Nazirite seclusion, have penetrated under the influence of time and
the Gentile environment".
Despite the eighty years separating Waldman's handbook from Faitlovitch's
report, the basic categories that guide the two are essentially the same. In both
cases, the Beta Israel are viewed as an alien Jewish group out of place in their
Ethiopian surroundings. Their history, culture, and religion, are depicted as
one more fragment in the mosaic that constitutes the universal Jewish experience. Elements or historical episodes that do not form part of this more general experience are either distorted or dismissed as aberrations.
Waldman's presentation is of interest not only for the components it shares
with Faitlovitch's account, but also as an example of survival of this perspective
despite (or, as we shall argue, because of) the Beta Israel's arrival in
Israel. Although the massive aliyah of the Beta Israel created an immediate
need for accurate information upon which to base absorption policies, it also
produced a no less pressing need for familiarimages through which to ease their
acceptance by the Israeli public. Thus at the same time as officials were struggling to understand the unique challenges posed by Ethiopian immigrants,the
general public were frequently presented with an image of life in Ethiopia that
resonated with familiarthemes. Although the Beta Israel had had little contact
with outside Jews and had not participatedin the great events of Jewish history,
they could, through subtle manipulation, be shown to have had a similar if not
identical experience.'5

15. Such a "parallelomania" is often characterized by an aggressive willingness to

disregard or invent history. A recent catalogue of "traditional artistic Ethiopian ceramics ignores the fact that this tradition dates only to the 1960s in order
to point out similarities to and suggest historic connections with "parallel objects
found in archaeological digs in Israel" (MUSEUMOFTHENEGEV1993).

THE INVENTION OF ETHIOPIAN JEWS

651

In the main, the popular image of the Beta Israel can be seen to depict their
story as a microcosm of World Jewish history. Having left the Land of Israel,
the Jews of Israel wandered in the galut ("exile"), until they settled in Ethiopia. There they rose to prominent positions but only to be supplanted by Christians and Christianity. After centuries of persecution and suffering, during
which they clung tenaciously to their ancestral faith, they were finally able to
return to the Promised Land; spared from a Holocaust by the initiative and daring of the Jewish state.16 Viewed in this manner, their story validates the central teachings of both Judaism and Zionism. Key words such as "exile",
"pogrom", "persecution" and "anti-semitism"served to invent a link between
Beta Israel history and that of other Jewish communities. Various Ethiopian
rulers became "Hitlers" and Nazis, while almost any significant loss of life was
labelled an Ethiopian "Shoah". Finally, the various airlifts (or, as they were
usually called, "Rescue operations"), came to appear as a vindication of the
State of Israel and the entire Zionist enterprise.17 As one official remarked'8
following the airlift of over 14,000 Ethiopians in less than 36 hours: "If the State
of Israel had existed in the 30s and 40s, we could have brought all six million
[who perished in the Holocaust] in six months!"

Changes in Self-Definition
Despite the vast differences that exist between the scholarly and popular views
of the Beta Israel, they are similar in being essentially emic in character. While
drawing on elements from the Beta Israel's own traditions, both present an
image that is largely the creation of outsiders. In this final section, therefore,
we shall consider the Beta Israel's own views of their identity and how it has
changed in recent years.
It is impossible, of course, to discuss all aspects of this fascinatingsubject in a
single essay (Kaplan & Rosen 1993). We shall limit ourselves, therefore, to two
topics: myths of origins and names. As we shall demonstrate below, both are
crucial indicators of group identity and its transformation.
As has often been noted, myths of origin usually tell us more about how a
people view themselves and would like to be seen by others, than they do about
any "historical"reality. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of a group

16. The literature containing these themes is so vast as to defy any bibliography. It
includes leaflets, pamphlets, films, slide shows, newpaper articles, etc. Cf. for
example the Information Paper, No 6, Feb. 1979, of the American Association
for Ethiopian Jews: "In a tragedy reminiscent of Europe during the Nazi occupation, a community of 28,000 Jews is silently facing extinction [...] The holocaust analogy does not lie in the method, nor in the recurrence of Jewish suffering. Rather it is in the reality that just as the extermination of Jews by the
Nazis proceeded in secrecy, very few know of the continuing decimation of the
Falashas. If their plight worsens, then a second holocaust will wax unknown
until it surfaces to once again shame the Jewish conscience".
17. In light of the above, it is ironic to note that the greatest single cause of Beta
Israel deaths in the twentieth century was their immigration to Israel through
the Sudan. In a period of less than a year two to four thousand people died.
18. Air force officer speaking on Israeli radio, May 25, 1991.

652

STEVEN

KAPLAN

like the Beta Israel, who are in the midst of a dramatic process of redefinition. This process is, as we shall see, mirrored in their stories of origin
(Abbink 1990: 404-408, 410-423).
Although the Beta Israel did not have a single "offical"account of their origins in Ethiopia, throughout most of their known history the story of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba appears to have dominated their traditions (ibid.;
Kaplan 1992: 21-24, Shelemay 1986: 17, Krempel 1972: 29).
According to this legend, the Queen of Sheba travelled from the ancient
Ethiopian capital of Aksum to visit King Solomon in Jerusalem. During her
stay, Solomon not only dazzled her with his wisdom, but also tricked her by a
clever ruse into having sexual relations with him. The Queen conceived a son,
whom she bore upon her return to Aksum. When he reached maturity, this
son, Menelik, journeyed to Jerusalem to meet his father. At the completion of
Menelik's visit, Solomon commanded that the first-bornsons of the priests and
elders of Israel accompany him to Aksum. However, before setting out Menelik and his companions, led by Azariah, the son of the High Priest, stole the Ark
of the Covenant from the Temple. Thus the glory of Zion passed from Jerusalem and the Children of Israel, to the new Zion, Aksum, and the new Israel, the
Ethiopian people.19
The story is engaging, at points even amusing. Yet its occasional lightness
of tone should not lead one to underestimate its centrality for an understanding
of the thought-worldof traditional Ethiopia. In its classical Ethiopian formulation, a book known as the Kebra Nagast ("The glory of kings"), the SolomonSheba legend became the basic metaphor for legitimacy and authority within
Ethiopian culture, and a crucial element in the genealogies of numerous regional
and ethnic groups, including the Beta Israel.20
By associating themselves with the Solomon-Sheba legend, the Beta Israel
were claiming to be part of Ethiopia's cultural elite. They were defining themselves in the most positive terms possible within the realm of that country's traditional religio-political categories. It is therefore of tremendous significance
that today Ethiopian Jews in Israel almost unanimouslyreject any connection to
this tradition. Rather, they present themselves as descendants of Jews who followed the Biblical prophet Jeremiah to Egypt or, in keeping with rabbinic opinion, descendants of the lost tribe of Dan (Abbink 1990: 415-416).
While both these later traditions can be said to have existed prior to the
1980s, their increasing prominence coupled with the outright rejection of the
Solomon-Sheba story is a vivid testimony to the changes having taken place in
the Beta Israel's self-image. While that story placed the Beta Israel in the
mainstreamof Ethiopian history and culture, in Israel there is little benefit to be
gained from claiming to be of the same origin as tens of millions of other Ethio-

19. For the story itself, see C. BEZOLD 1905, or BUDGE 1932. For important discussions of its significance in Ethiopia, see ULLENDORFF (1968: 74-19) and LEVINE
(1974: 92-112).
20. TADDESSE TAMRAT 1972: 250, esp. fn 2. In their versions the Beta Israel usually
stressed their separation from other Ethiopians either during the journey to
Aksum over the issue of travel on the Sabbath, or at a later stage when many of
their compatriots accepted Christianity.

THE INVENTION

OF ETHIOPIAN

JEWS

653

pians. However, both the Egyptian and the Danite traditions separate the
Beta Israel from Christian Ethiopians, while emphasizing their links to other
Jews.
A similar change of focus can be seen in the names that the Beta Israel use to
refer to themselves. In Ethiopia, they most commonly used a name (Beta
Israel) that linked them to the country's Israelite (Solomonic) heritage.21 They
were also widely known by the name Falasha, a term that developed in the Middle Ages and denoted either their status as landless people (falasawi) or their
association with monks (falasyan) (Kaplan 1990b: 151-152; 1992: 65-73). Today,
the term Beta Israel is used almost exclusively by scholars, while Falasha is
strongly rejected as prejorative and insulting. The Beta Israel of Ethiopia have
become the Ethiopian Jews (in Hebrew: Yehuday Etiopiya) of Israel. In Israel
today and in the popular Jewish press, they are rarely if ever designated by any
other term.22
This shift of nomenclature carries with it a significance far beyond that of the
names themselves. In the Ethiopian historicalcontext, ayhudawi ("Jew") was a
pejorative term applied to someone one wished to label as a heretic or apostate. While "Israelites"were good, "Jews"were, without exception, bad (ibid.:
38, 47, 60-65). Even more than the frequently cited Falasha, ayhud ("Jews")
was a highly negative label that no group would apply to itself. Moreover, prior
to the second half of the nineteenth century the Beta Israel did not speak of
themselves as Jews.
Joseph Halevy was not aware of this when he went to Ethiopia in 1867 as the
emissary of the Alliance israelite universelle. His initial encounter with the
Beta Israel is instructive:
"The crowd that surrounded me prevented me from entering into conversation
with them, but I managedto ask them in a whisper, 'Are you Jews?' They did not
seem to understandmy question, which I repeated under another form, 'Are you
Israelites?'A movement of assent mingledwith astonishment,proved to me that I
had struck the right chord".23
In the century and a quarter since Halevy, the Beta Israel's image of themselves and their place in the world has been totally revolutionized. Nowhere is
this more clearly seen than in the manner they refer to themselves. Their
choice of "Ethiopian Jews" as their preferred name marks their entry into not
only a new home, but also into a new world of categories. Far more significant
than their abandonment of the (in Ethiopian terms) positive appelation of "Beta
Israel" is their willingness to embrace the hitherto negative label of "Jew". In

21. For useful discussions of these names, see ROSEN1985, KAPLAN1990b: 151-159.
22. The Jerusalem Post in an unusual move has rejected the expression "Ethiopan
Jews" and refers to the members of the community as Ethiopian immigrants or
former(?) Ethiopians!
23. HALEVY1877: 37. To the best of my knowledge, no commentator has considered the significance of the fact that World Jewry's first encounter with the
Beta Israel resulted in a misunderstanding. It was, as we have seen, not to be
the last.

654

STEVEN

KAPLAN

this choice of names, as in their selection of origin stories we find a vivid testimony to the new identity they have begun to assume.24

Discussion
Given the limits of this paper, it has been impossible to treat any of the models
discussed in full. Each is deserving a fuller exposition not only with regards to
its contents, but also concerning its functions and dynamics. We shall close,
therefore, with a few words about the changes taking place in each of the separate models and in the relationships between them.
Recent Ethiopianist research has produced a portrait of the Beta Israel
sharply at odds with that which existed only two decades ago. Working from a
variety of sources both oral and written, scholars have developed a model of the
Beta Israel which denies their direct links to any ancient Jewish groups, dates
their emergence as a separate people to the last five hundred years, and places
them firmly in the context of Ethiopian history and society. Ironically, the
Ethio-centric view has been articulated precisely at the time when the Beta
Israel were leaving Ethiopia and being settled in Israel. This unanticipated
coincidence has not only produced a growing dissonance between the scholarly
and indigenous models, but has also given the contrast between the two a political content it might not normally have held.25 Thus in less than a quartercentury, Ethiopian perspectives on the Falasha and even the views they once held of
themselves have acquired an anachronisticflavor and more than a tinge of political incorrectness.
The same period has, in contrast, witnessed a growing closeness and even
overlap between the Beta Israel's image of themselves and that of their new
Israeli neighbors. It would be simplistic, however, to view this trend as merely
one of closer proximity. The two models have also grown increasinglydependent on each other for acceptance, legitimacy, and sustenance. Thus, the selfimage presented by Ethiopian Jews in Israel is frequently tailored to meet the
needs and expectations of Jewish and Israeli audiences.26 The material provided in such encounters serves in turn to bolster claims to authenticity, accuracy, and (political) correctness by proponents of the Judaeo-centricmodel. The

24. See KAPLAN & ROSEN (1993) where it is suggested that "Beta Israel/Falasha"
culture should be analytically distinguished from "Ethiopian Jewish" culture.
25. Earlier scholars questioning or denying the Jewishness of the Falasha were often
criticized but were not usually subjected to the sustained political attacks aimed
at recent authors.
26. Interesting and amusing examples of this phenomenon are found in two calendars recently produced in Israel. The first entitled Ethiopian Bible Drawings
contains eleven drawings based on stories from the Old Testament and one New
Testament drawing, Jesus feeding the multitudes (Matthew 14: 17 sq.). The
last is designated in both Hebrew and English as "Eating the Manna"! (cf.
Ullendorff 1988: 269-270). A calendar prepared by the Israel Joint Distribution Committee identifies the first page of a Beta Israel Orit (Pentateuch) by
inscribing the first words of Genesis in Hebrew on the page. The Ge'ez text is
in fact from the book Enoch. The significant point concerning both these misrepresentations is that they were not invented by those who prepared the calendars, but provided to them by Ethiopian Jews living in Israel.

THE INVENTION

OF ETHIOPIAN

JEWS

655

support offered by Ethiopian Jews therefore masks the essential "culturalimperialism"of the Jewish-Israelimodel, which values elements of Beta Israel history
on the basis of their meaningfulnessfor other (mainly Western) Jews. Indeed, so
successful has this process of masking been that many secular Israelis who decry
attempts by rabbinicgroups to "normalize"Beta Israel religious life, find no difficulty in supporting views that "normalize"their history.27
Finally, we turn to the interaction between the Ethiopianist and Jewish-Zionist models. Despite sporadic attempts, supporters of the Jewish-Zionist model
have not succeeded in presenting a detailed academic critique of recent Ethiopianist research. As was noted above, they have frequently attacked the alleged
political implications of such research. This charge of political incorrectness is
particularlylevelled, as one might expect, against scholars who are Jewish and/or
Israeli. One reviewer commenting on my own book and stressing the implications that such a work should be written by an Israeli Jew noted:
"Jews content with conventional wisdom are bound to be uncomfortable with
Kaplan'sconclusions. This volume appearsat a particularlysensitive time.for the
Ethiopian community in Israel [...] Kaplan's opponents rightly feel that his
research may weaken the standing of the Ethiopian Jewish community in its
various political battles in Israel" (Orenstein 1993:48).
At least one attempt was made by an American pro-Ethiopian group to have
American Jewish scholar Kay Kaufman Shelemay's award winning book, Music,
Ritual and Falasha History removed from a major Jewish bookstore.28
Challenged, moreover, about the antiquity of the Ethiopian Jews, supporters
of the Jewish-Zionist model have responded by reiterating all the more strongly
the claim that a common experience of suffering links the Beta Israel to other
Jews. In the opinion of one critic of the Ethiopianist model, for example, the
claim that the Beta Israel are an Ethiopian ethnic group of recent origin,
... will not be welcomed to a branch of the Jewish people who have maintained
their loyalty to the Torah in the face of hardships every whit as severe as those
encountered by Jews in other parts of the world, excluding the Holocaust".29
Thus the suffering endured by the Beta Israel (itself a major pillar of the
Jewish-Zionist model) is invoked to give added weight to their disapproval of
scholarly theories which challenge their antiquity.

27. In contrast to Israeli religious groups which are consistent in their use of JewishZionist model to understand the Beta Israel, many secular Israelis appear to use
this model to argue for aliyah from Ethiopia, but balk at applying it to those
Ethiopian Jews already in Israel.
28. SHELEMAY 1991: 150-151. "By 1986, the tension that had increasingly permeated my personal relationships with the leaders of one [pro-FalashaJ activist
organization became public when I was invited to guest curate an exhibition on
the Ethiopian Jews at the Jewish Museum in New York City i...] Several
individuals protested the representation of the Beta Israel as part of Ethiopian
culture, laying the blame at my feet. They demanded that my recently
published book, copies of which were on sale in the Museum gift shop along
with other writings about the Beta Israel, be removed from the shelves".
29. D. Kessler "New Theories on Origins of Ethiopians Jews", The Jewish Chronicle
(London), Feb. 4, 1993.

656

STEVEN

KAPLAN

Given the changes the Beta Israel have undergone and are undergoing only a
prophet could predict their future or the changes that will take place in the depiction of their past. While the Ethiopianist model appears to have largely stabilized, the Jewish Zionist one and the Ethiopian Jews own views of themselves
continue to evolve and interact. Future scholars would do well to focus much
of their attention on the changes that take place within and between each of
these models.
Ben Zvi Institute for the Study of Oriental
Jewish Communities, Jerusalem, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBINK,

J.

1984 The Falashas in Ethiopia and Israel: The Problem of Ethnic Assimilation
(Nijmegen: Instituutvoor Culturele en Sociale Antropologie).
1990 "The Enigma of Beta Esra'el Ethnogenesis: An Ethno-HistoricalStudy",
Cahiersd'ttudes africainesXXX(4), 120: 397-450.
1991 "Mytho-legendeset histoire: 1'enigmede l'ethnogenese des Beta Esrael",
Les CahiersduiCEDAF (Centre d'etudes et de documentationafricaines)
IIl (3): 1-92.
AE?COLY, A. Z.

1943 Sepher hafalashim["The Book of the Falasha"](Tel Aviv: Masada).

BEN-DOR,

S.

1985 "Meqomot haKedoshimshel Yehud&-Etiopia"[The Holy Places of Ethiopian Jewry], Pe'amim XXII: 32-52.
BEZOLD, C.

1905 "Kebra Nagast. Die Herrlichkeit der Konige", Abhandlugen der Koniglichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften(Miinchen), XXIII (1):
I-LXII, 1-160.
BUDGE, E. A. W.

1932 The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menylek (London: The Medici
Society).
CHELOUCHE, D.

1988 Nidehai Yisra'el yechanas ["The Exiled of Israel will be Gathered in"]
(Jerusalem:Ahva).
CORINALDI, M.

1988 Yahadut Etiopia Zehut ve Masoret ["Ethiopian Jewry: Identity and Tradition"] (Jerusalem:Rubin Maas).

THE INVENTION

OF ETHIOPIAN

JEWS

657

D.
CRUMMEY,
1990 "Society, State and Nationality in the Recent Historiographyof Ethiopia",
Journal of African History XXXI (1): 103-119.
FAITLOVITCH, J.

1905

Notes d'un voyage chez les Falachas juifs d'Abyssinie (Paris: Ernest
Leroux).

GETATCHEW
HAILE
1988 "The Forty-Nine Hour Sabbath of the Ethiopian Church", Journal of
Semitic Studies XXXII (2): 233-254.
GRINFELD,I.
1986 "Jacques Faitlovitch, 'Father' of the Falashas", in Y. AVNERet. al. eds, The
Jews of Ethiopia: A People in Transition (Tel Aviv: Bet Hatefutsoth): 30-35.
HALEVY, J.

1877 "Travelsin Abyssinia"(trans. by J. Picciorro) in A. Lowy, ed., Miscellany

of Hebrew Literature (London: Trubner).
HAMMERSCHMIDT, E.

1965 "Jewish Elements in the Cult of the Ethiopian Church",Journal of Ethiopian Studies III: 1-12.
KAPLAN, S.

1988

"'Falasha' Religion: Ancient Judaism of Evolving Ethiopian Tradition. A

Review Article", Jewish Quarterly Review LXXIX (1): 53-55.

1990a "Mechkarhasifrutshel Beta Yisra'el:Hesegim ve Ya'adim"[The Study of

Beta Israel Literature:Retrospect and Prospect], Pe'amim XLI: 90-111.
1990b Les Falashas (Turnhout:Brepols).
1992

The Beta Israel (Falasha) in their Ethiopian Context: From Earliest Times to

the TwentiethCentury(New York: New York University Press).

KAPLAN, S. & ROSEN, C.

1993 "Ethiopian Immigrants to Israel: Between Preservation of Culture and

Invention of Tradition", Jewish Journal of Sociology XXXV (1): 35-48.
KREMPEL, V.

1972

Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Stellung der Falascha in der christlich-amharischen Gesellschaft von Nordwest-Athiopien (Berlin: Freie Universitat,

Ph. D. thesis).

LESLAU, W.

1975 "TaamratEmmanuel'sNotes on Falasha Monks and Holy Places", in Salo

Wittmayer Baron Jubilee. Vol. II (New York-Jerusalem: American
Academy for Jewish Research): 623-637.
LEVINE,D.N.

1974

Greater Ethiopia: The Evolution of a Multiethnic Society (Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press).

MUSEUM OF THE NEGEV

1993

The Sheba Connection (Beer Sheva: Museum of the Negev).

658

STEVEN

KAPLAN

ORENSTEIN,D.

1993 "View from the Ivory Tower", The JerusalemReport III, 22: 47-48.
QUIRIN, J. A.

1992 The Evolutionof the EthiopianJews (Philadephia:Universityof Pennsylvania).

ROSEN, C.

1985 "Falashim, Kayla, o Beta Yisra'el" [Falasha, Kayla, or Beta Israel],

Pe'amim XXII: 53-58.
SHELEMAY,K. K.

1986 Music, Ritual and Falasha History (East Lansing:MichiganState University, African Studies Center).
1991 A Song of Longing (Urbana-Chicago:University of Illinois.)
TADDESSE TAMRAT

1972 Churchand State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527(Oxford: ClarendonPress).

1991 "The Queen of Sheba Legend and the Beta Yisrael (Falashas)in Ethiopian
History", paper delivered a the First Colloquium on the Beta Yisrael
(Falasha), Oxford, June 26-28.
TREVISANSEMI, E.

1987 Allo specchio dei Falascia:Ebrei et etnologi duranteil colonialismofascista

(Firenze: Editrice La Giuntina).
ULLENDORFF,E.
1956 "Hebraic-Jewish Elements in Abyssinian (Monophysite) Christianity",
Journal of SemiticStudies I: 216-256.
1968 Ethiopia and the Bible (London: Oxford University Press).
1988 "Jesus in the Hebrew Bible", Journal of Jewish Studies XXXIX (2): 269270.
WALDMAN, M.

1985 The Jews of Ethiopia: The Beta Israel Community (Jerusalem: Joint Distribution Committee).
1989 Me'everle NahardKush: Yehude-Etiopiaveha'Amha Yehudi["Beyondthe
Rivers of Kush:The Jews of Ethiopia and the Jewish People"] (Tel Aviv:
Ministryof Defence).
1992 Me Etiopia le Yerushala'im:Yehude Etiopia be'a-tha Hadashah ["From
Ethiopia to Jerusalem: Ethiopian Jewry in Modern Times"] (Jerusalem:
Ministryof Education).